For starters, I'm glad he's gone. He was a drunken, genocidal coward, a self-aggrandizing misogynistic idiot, a callous ends-justify-the-means imperialist, a neoconservative shill who eagerly abandoned his intellectual principles whenever they came into conflict with his all-pervasive hatred of Islam and Muslims, and a smirking, self-congratulatory sexist. The world is better off without men like him in it.

Hitchens, who conclusively proves, as if it needed more any more evidence in its favor, that Americans will assume intelligence on the part of anything with a British accent, given the ferver with which people accepted his self-righteous posturing as intelligent thought. He constantly celebrated the deaths of others and bad-mouthed the recently-deceased. He made a point of it. He argued that offense was a completely meaningless concept and only hurts robust discussion. Anyone getting pious over this is being self-serving as all gently caress.

And yet I haven't even delved into his atheist rhetoric which had the depth of a children's swimming pool. He constantly railed against religion without even the slightest comprehension on the basic tenets of each faith. Young impressionable atheists were ever so swept by his false grandeur of logic and reason. In fact Hitchens may be the single reason why atheism has a worse reputation. Him and Dawkins both were/are exceptionally rude about there not being a god to the point of being obnoxious about it.

Good riddance.

I agree with much of your assessment, especially the part about Americans assuming intelligence on the part of anyone with a British accent (Madonna is genius! lol). I also agree that his atheistic arguments were hardly profound, but he was still better than most when it came to debating the subject. However, that just shows how low the bar is. I also agree that he should certainly not be lauded as some type of intellectual hero or noble person. In my opinion, he was witty, entertaining, and at least had the integrity to cultivate his own convictions- as perverse as those convictions may have been. But from a spiritual perspective, I must agree with you that his life caused far more harm than good. Nevertheless, I don't want to ever rejoice in anyone's death.

By the way, I applaud you for having the courage to offer your honest opinions about the man.

Selam

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

For starters, I'm glad he's gone. He was a drunken, genocidal coward, a self-aggrandizing misogynistic idiot, a callous ends-justify-the-means imperialist, a neoconservative shill who eagerly abandoned his intellectual principles whenever they came into conflict with his all-pervasive hatred of Islam and Muslims, and a smirking, self-congratulatory sexist. The world is better off without men like him in it.

Hitchens, who conclusively proves, as if it needed more any more evidence in its favor, that Americans will assume intelligence on the part of anything with a British accent, given the ferver with which people accepted his self-righteous posturing as intelligent thought. He constantly celebrated the deaths of others and bad-mouthed the recently-deceased. He made a point of it. He argued that offense was a completely meaningless concept and only hurts robust discussion. Anyone getting pious over this is being self-serving as all gently caress.

And yet I haven't even delved into his atheist rhetoric which had the depth of a children's swimming pool. He constantly railed against religion without even the slightest comprehension on the basic tenets of each faith. Young impressionable atheists were ever so swept by his false grandeur of logic and reason. In fact Hitchens may be the single reason why atheism has a worse reputation. Him and Dawkins both were/are exceptionally rude about there not being a god to the point of being obnoxious about it.

Good riddance.

Well said. William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher, destroyed Hitchens in a debate.

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

Humanity is an army. Our MOtto should be, nobody and no one should be left behind.

Amen!

such clarity! that in the eyes of the enemy we are all the same, in the eyes of the One who Loves us, we are all loveable!Love in its beautiful simplicity... says " I am my brother's keeper!"

God bless you my brother!

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

„He will be missed!“? This must be a joke. What do you miss him for? For his „intellect“ …. wooow, where did he get the intellect that told him to reject the Almighty God from? I am pretty sure he got it from Satan. So, why can someone be missed who rejected God, who blasphemed the Holy Spirit and who to the end tirelessly mocked the followers of Christ?

A couple of months ago I watched a stupid debate between him and the unholy-Spirited ex-Premier, Tony Blair. The whole debate was organized to lift up the spirit and ego of Mr. Hitchins. The guests in the room were purposely selected by the organizers to give rounds of applause to the rhetoric-obsessed Hitchins. And they all looked stupid and primitive, as they use the same old boring trick to mock beliefs and believers. Of course, at the end of the debate he was declared the winner – against religion, perhaps, against God.

I truly prefer a softly-spoken, stuttering nobody – like Moses – to the pseudo-wisemen á la Hicthins. This world doesn't need loud arrogant talkative individuals anymore. Who is louder than the rest at the moment? Atheists, Gays and Muslims. Frankly speaking, the world doesn't need them right now.

With his painful illness, mr. Hitchins had a better chance to know and learn God. He was given a chance to repent. But, he didn't. By refusing to do so he continued leading many astray. He was a public figure, and was supposed to repent publicly. Can you imagine how many lost souls could have been saved, if he had said before his death, “I am very sorry, I was wrong for denying God...”? No, he didn't repent, Hitler, Stalin, Mohammad never repented, his other hatemonger brothers and sisters in satan, like R. Dawkins and Madalyn Murray O'Hair continue their battle against the Christian God. King David calls them “fools”, and the scripture tells us these individuals land in hell. They will meet their master, satan, over there. The interesting thing is, it would be satan their master, who himself believes in the existence of God, that will be the first to great and accuse them why they didn't acknowledge Go while on Earth.

Please understand that I don't condemn anyone, for the Bible condemns all of us as guilty, dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners.

„He will be missed!“? This must be a joke. What do you miss him for? For his „intellect“ …. wooow, where did he get the intellect that told him to reject the Almighty God from? I am pretty sure he got it from Satan. So, why can someone be missed who rejected God, who blasphemed the Holy Spirit and who to the end tirelessly mocked the followers of Christ?

A couple of months ago I watched a stupid debate between him and the unholy-Spirited ex-Premier, Tony Blair. The whole debate was organized to lift up the spirit and ego of Mr. Hitchins. The guests in the room were purposely selected by the organizers to give rounds of applause to the rhetoric-obsessed Hitchins. And they all looked stupid and primitive, as they use the same old boring trick to mock beliefs and believers. Of course, at the end of the debate he was declared the winner – against religion, perhaps, against God.

I truly prefer a softly-spoken, stuttering nobody – like Moses – to the pseudo-wisemen á la Hicthins. This world doesn't need loud arrogant talkative individuals anymore. Who is louder than the rest at the moment? Atheists, Gays and Muslims. Frankly speaking, the world doesn't need them right now.

With his painful illness, mr. Hitchins had a better chance to know and learn God. He was given a chance to repent. But, he didn't. By refusing to do so he continued leading many astray. He was a public figure, and was supposed to repent publicly. Can you imagine how many lost souls could have been saved, if he had said before his death, “I am very sorry, I was wrong for denying God...”? No, he didn't repent, Hitler, Stalin, Mohammad never repented, his other hatemonger brothers and sisters in satan, like R. Dawkins and Madalyn Murray O'Hair continue their battle against the Christian God. King David calls them “fools”, and the scripture tells us these individuals land in hell. They will meet their master, satan, over there. The interesting thing is, it would be satan their master, who himself believes in the existence of God, that will be the first to great and accuse them why they didn't acknowledge Go while on Earth.

Please understand that I don't condemn anyone, for the Bible condemns all of us as guilty, dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners.

Rest assured friend, though he is dead his message will endure, even today the glorious message of secularism is reshaping the face of Europe, making strong inroads into the United States, and will eventually overtake the inferior belief structures that came before throughout the entire civilized world. But all in good time.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

The inevitable march of progress, eh GiC? I don't buy it. Islam is reshaping Europe and the rest of the West, too, but apparently that doesn't fit into your scheme, so you don't mention it.

The best secularists (not the new militant atheists a la Hitchens and Dawkins) recognize the value of religion. Salman Rushdie was interviewed by Bill Moyers a few years ago for the latter's "Faith and Reason" series on PBS. He was asked by Moyers if he ever felt any twinge of potential belief, since after all his writing often deals with religious themes. Rushdie replied that he does not, but that it doesn't matter if he himself doesn't have religious faith, because everyone he's writing about does. Away from ego-driven loudmouths like Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al., this is the kind of atheism/agnosticism/secularism most people encounter in the West. It does not seek to destroy religion because it recognizes that religion is important to people outside of itself, to vast majorities of many societies. I like this kind of secularism, and would support it over either the anti-religion of Hitchens' lapdogs or the fanaticism of Qutb's descendents. If you would support something more hardline than this, then who are you to present your stance as the progressive way forward for humanity? It is not any less destructive and poisonous to free thought than what you're fighting against.

So I do not buy it. I do not think you or the other militant atheist types here there and everywhere are sincere. You've puffed yourselves up as though history and time are on your side. I seem to remember a few other philosophies which taught similarly, and which in the end failed miserably. It is a matter of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", and just as people in the ex-Soviet Union and its satellites eventually grew tired of waiting for a secular utopia that would never come, eventually the current fashion of thought that has elevated the new atheism will change and something else will take its place.

They've been telling us that "God is dead" for many decades now, and yet belief in God always outlives those who claim that. Case in point, the topic of this thread.

The inevitable march of progress, eh GiC? I don't buy it. Islam is reshaping Europe and the rest of the West, too, but apparently that doesn't fit into your scheme, so you don't mention it.

Even the Islamic world will likely come around, just long after the civilized world.

Quote

The best secularists (not the new militant atheists a la Hitchens and Dawkins) recognize the value of religion. Salman Rushdie was interviewed by Bill Moyers a few years ago for the latter's "Faith and Reason" series on PBS. He was asked by Moyers if he ever felt any twinge of potential belief, since after all his writing often deals with religious themes. Rushdie replied that he does not, but that it doesn't matter if he himself doesn't have religious faith, because everyone he's writing about does. Away from ego-driven loudmouths like Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al., this is the kind of atheism/agnosticism/secularism most people encounter in the West. It does not seek to destroy religion because it recognizes that religion is important to people outside of itself, to vast majorities of many societies. I like this kind of secularism, and would support it over either the anti-religion of Hitchens' lapdogs or the fanaticism of Qutb's descendents. If you would support something more hardline than this, then who are you to present your stance as the progressive way forward for humanity? It is not any less destructive and poisonous to free thought than what you're fighting against.

I don't think anyone, Dawkins and Hitchens included, is trying to actively destroy religion. The statement that Christianity is on its way out is merely an observation, not a declaration of war. The secularists have no need to destroy religion, because, quite frankly, the religious are doing a fine job all by themselves. But the true driving power is education, a more educated populace is a less religious populace and I see very little chance that the role of education and knowledge in our society will diminish in the coming century.

Quote

So I do not buy it. I do not think you or the other militant atheist types here there and everywhere are sincere. You've puffed yourselves up as though history and time are on your side. I seem to remember a few other philosophies which taught similarly, and which in the end failed miserably. It is a matter of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss", and just as people in the ex-Soviet Union and its satellites eventually grew tired of waiting for a secular utopia that would never come, eventually the current fashion of thought that has elevated the new atheism will change and something else will take its place.

The belief in a utopia, be it in this life or the next, is a political position, it's a statement on the ideal manner in which a people should be ruled. The statement that there is no god is a simple probabilistic observation, no belief in the ideals of the state required.

Quote

They've been telling us that "God is dead" for many decades now, and yet belief in God always outlives those who claim that. Case in point, the topic of this thread.

In Nietzsche's social circles, that was true when he said it, it's true for much larger segments of society today and I only see the trend continuing.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I don't think anyone, Dawkins and Hitchens included, is trying to actively destroy religion. The statement that Christianity is on its way out is merely an observation, not a declaration of war.

So what would you call writing a book titled "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"? If I wrote a book called "Why GiC is an idiot and his point of view is dangerous and will ruin the world", could I then fall back on "hey, I'm just making an observation"? No. You're making a stand. You're making some sort of point in favor of your viewpoint over the viewpoints of others. Don't cop out with all that "hey, we're only observing this stuff" business. Your original post that I responded to was about what a great impact these secularists are having on society. (And I agree that they are, my point is just don't back away from it now. That's dishonest.)

Quote

The belief in a utopia, be it in this life or the next, is a political position, it's a statement on the ideal manner in which a people should be ruled. The statement that there is no god is a simple probabilistic observation, no belief in the ideals of the state required.

Here's the disconnect between arguing as you are now and the kinds of arguments that come out of the Hitchens and his ilk: If God does not exist, who cares? Why is it bad if I believe in something that is not scientifically verifiable? I'm not talking about religious extremism; that is obviously bad. I'm talking about basic belief of the "yes or no" variety. If I say "well, I believe that God does exist, because science has its place and that place is not to answer the ultimate questions about the point of our existence", what does it matter? Every single atheist or atheistically-minded person I've ever talked to makes the argument that this would hold back humanity in some way. So to read that disbelief in God does not require a belief about the ideal of the state (intellectual and material progress and whatnot), well...I'm willing to grant you that, but also you'd be the first. I don't really see how that works, but I guess that's only because ultimately every atheist I've ever read about, talked to, listened to, etc. ultimately falls back on this "you must shed your superstitions" idea -- well, WHY? If it's not about something good happening when I do that, then why? Because you can't find God with laboratory equipment? But I don't care about that...I leave work at work!

(Sorry, I don't mean to harangue you, since you don't appear to be making that argument. I'm just not understanding how atheism is preferable to theism if that is not included. Why cheer on the advance of secularism if you don't think man is better off for it? What's the advantage if it isn't about reaching some more advanced state? That everyone will be rational because rationalism is inherently good or something?)

Quote

In Nietzsche's social circles, that was true when he said it, it's true for much larger segments of society today and I only see the trend continuing.

Why then do other thinkers such as Huntington make the argument that religious and cultural identities are the new source of conflict in the post-cold war world? What is all of this conflict in the Middle East and exported from there to the West about, then? Maybe Osama Bin Laden was really just frustrated about the lack of progress in education in his part of the world? Or do a billion people (or many more billions, if you count all religious believers as being a homogenous group by virtue of a common belief in something) not matter because they're not part of the "civilized world", as you alluded to in the part of your reply about the Muslim world?

It's easy to look at America and Europe and say that secularism will win the day. Well, America and Europe are not the world. I would think that our current war against radical Islamic terrorism would drive that point home, but it seems that all many people have gotten out of it is "religion bad".

But the true driving power is education propaganda, a more educated brainwashed populace is a less religious populace

I fixed your sentence above to clarify what I suspect you really mean.

"Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." -Joseph Stalin-

"Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture."-Mao Tse Tung-[On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1959), 1st pocket ed., p. 44.]

"As for education for cadres whether at work or in schools for cadres, a policy should be established of focusing such education on the study of the practical problems of the Chinese revolution and using the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism as the guide, and the method of studying Marxism-Leninism statically and in isolation should be discarded." -Mao Tse Tung-["Reform Our Study" (May 1941), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 24.]

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round".-Adolf Hitler- [Mein Kampf page 376]

You see, "education" is too generic and too amorphous of a term. Great lies and great evils have been perpetrated in the name of "education." Politicians love to talk about education, because they understand that nobody will oppose "education." And they cleverly construct and pass all manner of immoral and godless legislation by euphemistically labeling their propaganda as "education." So, I'm not one to fall for that trick. Better to be an ignorant savage than an educated fool.

Selam

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

But the true driving power is education, a more educated populace is a less religious populace and I see very little chance that the role of education and knowledge in our society will diminish in the coming century

Wow GiC, you usually dont weild such a blunt instrument.......

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

I don't think anyone, Dawkins and Hitchens included, is trying to actively destroy religion. The statement that Christianity is on its way out is merely an observation, not a declaration of war.

So what would you call writing a book titled "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"? If I wrote a book called "Why GiC is an idiot and his point of view is dangerous and will ruin the world", could I then fall back on "hey, I'm just making an observation"? No. You're making a stand. You're making some sort of point in favor of your viewpoint over the viewpoints of others. Don't cop out with all that "hey, we're only observing this stuff" business. Your original post that I responded to was about what a great impact these secularists are having on society. (And I agree that they are, my point is just don't back away from it now. That's dishonest.)

How do you confuse the expression of his opinion with 'actively destroying religion'? No laws were passed that forbid your exercise of religion, you were in no well compelled to abandon your faith, Hitchens simply stated that 'god' throughout history has never been a positive influence on society, that the belief in such a god has historically been damaging and unproductive. But if you still desire, you're free to follow a religious belief system; it seems that you're not upset with secularists trying to destroy religion, you're upset that you're not allowed to destroy the secularists and deny them the same rights you claim for yourself.

Quote

Quote

The belief in a utopia, be it in this life or the next, is a political position, it's a statement on the ideal manner in which a people should be ruled. The statement that there is no god is a simple probabilistic observation, no belief in the ideals of the state required.

Here's the disconnect between arguing as you are now and the kinds of arguments that come out of the Hitchens and his ilk: If God does not exist, who cares? Why is it bad if I believe in something that is not scientifically verifiable? I'm not talking about religious extremism; that is obviously bad. I'm talking about basic belief of the "yes or no" variety. If I say "well, I believe that God does exist, because science has its place and that place is not to answer the ultimate questions about the point of our existence", what does it matter? Every single atheist or atheistically-minded person I've ever talked to makes the argument that this would hold back humanity in some way. So to read that disbelief in God does not require a belief about the ideal of the state (intellectual and material progress and whatnot), well...I'm willing to grant you that, but also you'd be the first. I don't really see how that works, but I guess that's only because ultimately every atheist I've ever read about, talked to, listened to, etc. ultimately falls back on this "you must shed your superstitions" idea -- well, WHY? If it's not about something good happening when I do that, then why? Because you can't find God with laboratory equipment? But I don't care about that...I leave work at work!

I'm not sure where you found these atheists of which you speak, maybe in a former or current communist state? Most, though not all, atheists I know tend to follow enlightenment-era philosophical ideals; yes, they will argue against religion and the harm it does, but I don't know anyone who would seek to use the violence of the state to suppress it. Whether or not religion is detrimental to the state, most who embrace the ideals of the enlightenment would argue that the individual's freedom of conscience takes precedence over the interests of the state, rending the question moot. There are obviously exceptions, such as the atheism that arose during communism and even a few technocratic atheists in the west, but in my experience they are a small minority in the west, especially in the United States.

Quote

(Sorry, I don't mean to harangue you, since you don't appear to be making that argument. I'm just not understanding how atheism is preferable to theism if that is not included. Why cheer on the advance of secularism if you don't think man is better off for it? What's the advantage if it isn't about reaching some more advanced state? That everyone will be rational because rationalism is inherently good or something?)

I praise the advance of secularism because, first of all, it seems most probable that it is true and that because of this, it is worth pursuing by its own right. Secondly, I consider dogmatic responses to questions to be entirely unhelpful and unproductive, I would rather that the energy spent defending the dogma of ancient texts be used for an objective pursuit of knowledge through science and reason. Also, I would hope that the realization that this is the only world we have and the only life we live would implore people to make the best of it, rather than living in misery with the hope of better things that will never come.

But I believe that these things must be achieved by knowledge and education; any attempt to use force would be worse than counterproductive. If people believe what they believe because they are compelled by law or threat of violence to do so, then any belief will become destructive, no matter how true it is. Freedom must be valued even above truth.

Quote

Quote

In Nietzsche's social circles, that was true when he said it, it's true for much larger segments of society today and I only see the trend continuing.

Why then do other thinkers such as Huntington make the argument that religious and cultural identities are the new source of conflict in the post-cold war world? What is all of this conflict in the Middle East and exported from there to the West about, then? Maybe Osama Bin Laden was really just frustrated about the lack of progress in education in his part of the world? Or do a billion people (or many more billions, if you count all religious believers as being a homogenous group by virtue of a common belief in something) not matter because they're not part of the "civilized world", as you alluded to in the part of your reply about the Muslim world?

I don't know that these thinkers are wrong on this particular point. Until the cold-war era, these questions and philosophical debates were largely the province of the upper classes, few in the lower classes or even growing middle class (outside academia, at least) had the time, money, or inclination to involve themselves in these philosophical debates that became common place amongst the upper classes of the 19th century. Through academia, and largely thanks to the GI Bill, atheism and agnosticism were slowly introduced to the middle class during the cold war, very slowly at first but the rate has increased. People like Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. are really the first populist atheists, or at least represent the first large-scale populist atheistic movement. Their target audiences aren't the landed nobles or titans of industry, but the common man; their insistence on the rational abilities of the common man are probably also why the movement is so strongly steeped in enlightenment-era philosophy, it is one of the few philosophical systems that truly treat all members of a society as equals.

Quote

It's easy to look at America and Europe and say that secularism will win the day. Well, America and Europe are not the world. I would think that our current war against radical Islamic terrorism would drive that point home, but it seems that all many people have gotten out of it is "religion bad".

It's just as easy to look at the Islamic world today and see Europe during the Reformation; of course, unlike Europe during the Reformation, there is significant outside pressure towards more secularism in the Islamic world today. History has also taught us the path towards secularism from religion, namely education and the empowerment of women (both of which undermine the heart of fundamentalism, namely poverty). And none of this is to say that I predict the complete demise of all religious belief, merely a paradigm shift where society informs religion rather than religion informing society (we're already seeing this in the West, especially amongst the Protestants and more slowly amongst the Catholics and Orthodox); once that shift occurs, I think a society can be fairly considered to be secular.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 05:00:19 PM by GiC »

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

But the true driving power is education, a more educated populace is a less religious populace and I see very little chance that the role of education and knowledge in our society will diminish in the coming century

Wow GiC, you usually dont weild such a blunt instrument.......

PP

When addressing an entire society (or, more accurately, an entire group of societies) in a single paragraph, only a relative amount of precision is possible. As with any general social rule, there will always be numerous exceptions on both sides.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

But the true driving power is education, a more educated populace is a less religious populace and I see very little chance that the role of education and knowledge in our society will diminish in the coming century

Wow GiC, you usually dont weild such a blunt instrument.......

PP

When addressing an entire society (or, more accurately, an entire group of societies) in a single paragraph, only a relative amount of precision is possible. As with any general social rule, there will always be numerous exceptions on both sides.

Fair enough.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

But the true driving power is education propaganda, a more educated brainwashed populace is a less religious populace

I fixed your sentence above to clarify what I suspect you really mean.

"Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." -Joseph Stalin-

"Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture."-Mao Tse Tung-[On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1959), 1st pocket ed., p. 44.]

"As for education for cadres whether at work or in schools for cadres, a policy should be established of focusing such education on the study of the practical problems of the Chinese revolution and using the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism as the guide, and the method of studying Marxism-Leninism statically and in isolation should be discarded." -Mao Tse Tung-["Reform Our Study" (May 1941), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 24.]

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round".-Adolf Hitler- [Mein Kampf page 376]

You see, "education" is too generic and too amorphous of a term. Great lies and great evils have been perpetrated in the name of "education." Politicians love to talk about education, because they understand that nobody will oppose "education." And they cleverly construct and pass all manner of immoral and godless legislation by euphemistically labeling their propaganda as "education." So, I'm not one to fall for that trick. Better to be an ignorant savage than an educated fool.

Selam

I'm not the one confusing education and propaganda here. When I speak of education, I generally refer to mathematical and scientific education, facts that the person being educated can verify through either repeated experiment or reason; not that I oppose other types of education, I'm even OK with state-sponsored religious education so long as it is broadly taught and equally represents all of the world's major religions and philosophies without bias; it is up to the student to choose the philosophy his or her conscience dictates, not the professor or state-paid educator. I have great faith and confidence in individuals, so long as they are not acting collectively.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

For starters, I'm glad he's gone. He was a drunken, genocidal coward, a self-aggrandizing misogynistic idiot, a callous ends-justify-the-means imperialist, a neoconservative shill who eagerly abandoned his intellectual principles whenever they came into conflict with his all-pervasive hatred of Islam and Muslims, and a smirking, self-congratulatory sexist. The world is better off without men like him in it.

Hitchens, who conclusively proves, as if it needed more any more evidence in its favor, that Americans will assume intelligence on the part of anything with a British accent, given the ferver with which people accepted his self-righteous posturing as intelligent thought. He constantly celebrated the deaths of others and bad-mouthed the recently-deceased. He made a point of it. He argued that offense was a completely meaningless concept and only hurts robust discussion. Anyone getting pious over this is being self-serving as all gently caress.

And yet I haven't even delved into his atheist rhetoric which had the depth of a children's swimming pool. He constantly railed against religion without even the slightest comprehension on the basic tenets of each faith. Young impressionable atheists were ever so swept by his false grandeur of logic and reason. In fact Hitchens may be the single reason why atheism has a worse reputation. Him and Dawkins both were/are exceptionally rude about there not being a god to the point of being obnoxious about it.

Good riddance.

Thank you!

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

But the true driving power is education propaganda, a more educated brainwashed populace is a less religious populace

I fixed your sentence above to clarify what I suspect you really mean.

"Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." -Joseph Stalin-

"Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture."-Mao Tse Tung-[On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1959), 1st pocket ed., p. 44.]

"As for education for cadres whether at work or in schools for cadres, a policy should be established of focusing such education on the study of the practical problems of the Chinese revolution and using the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism as the guide, and the method of studying Marxism-Leninism statically and in isolation should be discarded." -Mao Tse Tung-["Reform Our Study" (May 1941), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 24.]

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round".-Adolf Hitler- [Mein Kampf page 376]

You see, "education" is too generic and too amorphous of a term. Great lies and great evils have been perpetrated in the name of "education." Politicians love to talk about education, because they understand that nobody will oppose "education." And they cleverly construct and pass all manner of immoral and godless legislation by euphemistically labeling their propaganda as "education." So, I'm not one to fall for that trick. Better to be an ignorant savage than an educated fool.

Selam

I'm not the one confusing education and propaganda here. When I speak of education, I generally refer to mathematical and scientific education, facts that the person being educated can verify through either repeated experiment or reason; not that I oppose other types of education, I'm even OK with state-sponsored religious education so long as it is broadly taught and equally represents all of the world's major religions and philosophies without bias; it is up to the student to choose the philosophy his or her conscience dictates, not the professor or state-paid educator. I have great faith and confidence in individuals, so long as they are not acting collectively.

But who are you to decide what constitutes proper education? What gives you the authority to define education for the rest of us?

Selam

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

Perhaps the educated are less likely to believe here in the West, but I have read studies that show a different trend in places like China, where the more educated a person is, the likelier they are to have religious belief.

How do you confuse the expression of his opinion with 'actively destroying religion'?

What are you talking about? Why is the phrase "actively destroying religion" in scare quotes, as though that is a point I ever tried to make? If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I am trying to remind you that these people are impacting society, not being impartial observers of trends that exist independently of the writings that they have produced. And, yes, those writings are about getting rid of religion for its supposed negative influence on society, but actively destroying religion is going too far (hence I never used those words). A book can't actively do anything. Don't misrepresent what I've written in order to fit some unrelated point about laws and how you think I want to deny secularists rights and all that. I never wrote anything close to that. I'm not looking to destroy anybody. In case you missed it, I'm pro-secularism, just not pro-atheism disguising itself as enlightenment.

Quote

I'm not sure where you found these atheists of which you speak, maybe in a former or current communist state? Most, though not all, atheists I know tend to follow enlightenment-era philosophical ideals; yes, they will argue against religion and the harm it does, but I don't know anyone who would seek to use the violence of the state to suppress it.

Who is talking about state violence in the suppression of religion? I brought up the ex-Soviet Union as an example of a place where something that was supposedly fated to happen didn't happen (to illustrate why I am leery of claims about the inevitable victory of this or that ideology), but that has nothing to do with state suppression of religion (at least not directly). Instead, I wanted to know what the problem is if I believe in something that is not scientific. Why does it matter?

Quote

I praise the advance of secularism because, first of all, it seems most probable that it is true and that because of this, it is worth pursuing by its own right.

A fair point, but I am confused as to why this love of the search for truth should exclude people who believe that religion is true. A great many pre-scientific (pre-modern) theories on the origin of the world or various things within it were formulated by men of great religious faith and they were no less a search for truth than the modern secularist or atheist's search for truth.

Quote

Their target audiences aren't the landed nobles or titans of industry, but the common man; their insistence on the rational abilities of the common man are probably also why the movement is so strongly steeped in enlightenment-era philosophy, it is one of the few philosophical systems that truly treat all members of a society as equals.

I disagree, as much of the modern discourse precludes any religious viewpoint by virtue of its assumed 'superstition' (as though we all agree that the world of the academician or scientist and the believer are polar opposites; I have yet to observe that in reality at any level of higher education). But you are right insofar as atheism has a popular support now that it did not have before.

Quote

It's just as easy to look at the Islamic world today and see Europe during the Reformation; of course, unlike Europe during the Reformation, there is significant outside pressure towards more secularism in the Islamic world today.

Is this a general statement, or in anticipation of a reply along those lines? Because I don't buy this idea that the Islamic world is in some kind of reformation right now akin to the Protestant reformation. I think that's hogwash and wishful thinking on the part of the Reza Aslans of the world who are in denial concerning the true nature of the conflict between Islam and the rest of the world.

Quote

History has also taught us the path towards secularism from religion, namely education and the empowerment of women (both of which undermine the heart of fundamentalism, namely poverty). And none of this is to say that I predict the complete demise of all religious belief, merely a paradigm shift where society informs religion rather than religion informing society (we're already seeing this in the West, especially amongst the Protestants and more slowly amongst the Catholics and Orthodox); once that shift occurs, I think a society can be fairly considered to be secular.

By that definition I think it is undeniable that society as a whole is already secular (at least with regard to America and, from what I've been able to glean from people who live there, Europe).

He's dead...no more surprises. The computer that was his brain is rotting away and no longer capable of computation and thus no longer capable of realization, understanding, or surprise. It's the fate that awaits us all.

His intellect may be missed, but he knew that the hear and now is all there is to our existence, he lived life to its fullest, and he took no half measures, in the end that's all we can ask out of life.

Most of that is probably untrue, based on the evidence for survival of death and an afterlife.. Welcome to reality.

I wonder what he thought the moment after his death when he discovered his soul had survived? ... Maybe i'll start a thread

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Hitchens simply stated that 'god' throughout history has never been a positive influence on society, that the belief in such a god has historically been damaging and unproductive.

Wasn't it The Church that first began Universities and Hospitals? Wasn't it the emphasis on education within Judaism that led to the raising up of some of our brightest people? I think you have to skim through History very carelessly believe as Hitchens did.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I will NEVER understand Bill Maher's appeal. He is a joke. A horrible stand up. A worse B movie actor.

Why people think the guy is edgy, I will never know.

The TWO times he ever said something with a hint of edge, he cried crocodile tears afterward and gave a mea culpa.

Politically Incorrect my ([redacted comments about the rules governing the use language on the forum to suggest the word I was going to use]).

Agreed brother.

Selam

Same here. And I can't stand Dawkins either.

- GTA

I'm fairly certain that Dawkins is either stupid, dishonest, or both. Whatever happened to the intelligent atheists of old?

The Dawkins of "The Selfish Gene," "The Blind Watchmaker," and "The Greatest Show on Earth" seems perfectly honest and intelligent. Then you get to the Dawkins of "The God Delusion" and "The Root of All Evil," and it becomes apparent that he stepped deep into unfamiliar territory when he affiliated himself with the New Atheist movement. Of course, New Atheism tends to value shock at least as much as it does. soundness when it comes to arguments, so Dawkins manages to blend in pretty well in spite of massive shortcomings in knowledge of religion.

As for Mr. Hitchens, I'm not entirely sure what to think. The man had incredible guts, given his willingness to be water-boarded to prove a point, to change his mind on that point afterwards, and to always call out BS whenever he saw it. On the other hand, he had a nasty tendency to see BS when there was none and to act like an arrogant dick about pretty much everything, to say nothing about his straight-out-of-the-19th-century imperialism and condescension to Mahometanism and Popery. He was obviously a very bold and bright guy, but much of his life and intellect seem to have been entirely wasted. May the Lord have mercy on him.

Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

He's dead...no more surprises. The computer that was his brain is rotting away and no longer capable of computation and thus no longer capable of realization, understanding, or surprise. It's the fate that awaits us all.

His intellect may be missed, but he knew that the hear and now is all there is to our existence, he lived life to its fullest, and he took no half measures, in the end that's all we can ask out of life.

Most of that is probably untrue, based on the evidence for survival of death and an afterlife.. Welcome to reality.

I wonder what he thought the moment after his death when he discovered his soul had survived? ... Maybe i'll start a thread

Hitchens simply stated that 'god' throughout history has never been a positive influence on society, that the belief in such a god has historically been damaging and unproductive.

Wasn't it The Church that first began Universities and Hospitals? Wasn't it the emphasis on education within Judaism that led to the raising up of some of our brightest people? I think you have to skim through History very carelessly believe as Hitchens did.

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated.

Keep romanticising the ancients, GiC.

The ever-lauded ancients were the ones who killed Socrates, as much as any mob of Copts killed Hypatia.

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated.

Keep romanticising the ancients, GiC.

The ever-lauded ancients were the ones who killed Socrates, as much as any mob of Copts killed Hypatia.

They were far from perfect, I don't know that we could even call them civilized, but they built the foundation of civilization and placed humanity on the path it enjoys today. A foundation that the Church tried very hard to tear down; so it's not surprising that some during the middle ages realized the folly of their age and decided to reestablish some of the ancient institutions that had been destroyed, either by the axes of barbarians or in the pursuit of piety.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

He's dead...no more surprises. The computer that was his brain is rotting away and no longer capable of computation and thus no longer capable of realization, understanding, or surprise. It's the fate that awaits us all.

His intellect may be missed, but he knew that the hear and now is all there is to our existence, he lived life to its fullest, and he took no half measures, in the end that's all we can ask out of life.

Most of that is probably untrue, based on the evidence for survival of death and an afterlife.. Welcome to reality.

I wonder what he thought the moment after his death when he discovered his soul had survived? ... Maybe i'll start a thread

Hitchens simply stated that 'god' throughout history has never been a positive influence on society, that the belief in such a god has historically been damaging and unproductive.

Wasn't it The Church that first began Universities and Hospitals? Wasn't it the emphasis on education within Judaism that led to the raising up of some of our brightest people? I think you have to skim through History very carelessly believe as Hitchens did.

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated.

i guess you didnt follow my point..That's fine.. I'm not in the mood to argue right now

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated.

Keep romanticising the ancients, GiC.

The ever-lauded ancients were the ones who killed Socrates, as much as any mob of Copts killed Hypatia.

They were far from perfect, I don't know that we could even call them civilized, but they built the foundation of civilization and placed humanity on the path it enjoys today. A foundation that the Church tried very hard to tear down; so it's not surprising that some during the middle ages realized the folly of their age and decided to reestablish some of the ancient institutions that had been destroyed, either by the axes of barbarians or in the pursuit of piety.

GiC's post got me thinking so I googled a bit. I came across this little gem.

The Blind Watchmaker is an amazing book. How the hell did he go from that to the God Delusion? Perplexing to say the least.

But him too is another despicable human being. I recall his confrontation with William Lane Craig in a "debate" in Mexico where he wouldn't even shake WLC's hand when it was offered and said something extremely rude. Then there was the kid in a wheelchair who called him out about how arrogant he was about there not being a god. There are so many reports of him being ridicously obnoxious.

But you know being an ***hole is a great argument for atheism Richard, keep that up and I'm sure there will be plenty of atheists in no time!

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated.

Keep romanticising the ancients, GiC.

The ever-lauded ancients were the ones who killed Socrates, as much as any mob of Copts killed Hypatia.

They were far from perfect, I don't know that we could even call them civilized, but they built the foundation of civilization and placed humanity on the path it enjoys today. A foundation that the Church tried very hard to tear down; so it's not surprising that some during the middle ages realized the folly of their age and decided to reestablish some of the ancient institutions that had been destroyed, either by the axes of barbarians or in the pursuit of piety.

GiC's post got me thinking so I googled a bit. I came across this little gem.

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated

I had no idea that folks started reading history books from the middle.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

„He will be missed!“? This must be a joke. What do you miss him for? For his „intellect“ …. wooow, where did he get the intellect that told him to reject the Almighty God from? I am pretty sure he got it from Satan. So, why can someone be missed who rejected God, who blasphemed the Holy Spirit and who to the end tirelessly mocked the followers of Christ?

A couple of months ago I watched a stupid debate between him and the unholy-Spirited ex-Premier, Tony Blair. The whole debate was organized to lift up the spirit and ego of Mr. Hitchins. The guests in the room were purposely selected by the organizers to give rounds of applause to the rhetoric-obsessed Hitchins. And they all looked stupid and primitive, as they use the same old boring trick to mock beliefs and believers. Of course, at the end of the debate he was declared the winner – against religion, perhaps, against God.

I truly prefer a softly-spoken, stuttering nobody – like Moses – to the pseudo-wisemen á la Hicthins. This world doesn't need loud arrogant talkative individuals anymore. Who is louder than the rest at the moment? Atheists, Gays and Muslims. Frankly speaking, the world doesn't need them right now.

With his painful illness, mr. Hitchins had a better chance to know and learn God. He was given a chance to repent. But, he didn't. By refusing to do so he continued leading many astray. He was a public figure, and was supposed to repent publicly. Can you imagine how many lost souls could have been saved, if he had said before his death, “I am very sorry, I was wrong for denying God...”? No, he didn't repent, Hitler, Stalin, Mohammad never repented, his other hatemonger brothers and sisters in satan, like R. Dawkins and Madalyn Murray O'Hair continue their battle against the Christian God. King David calls them “fools”, and the scripture tells us these individuals land in hell. They will meet their master, satan, over there. The interesting thing is, it would be satan their master, who himself believes in the existence of God, that will be the first to great and accuse them why they didn't acknowledge Go while on Earth.

Please understand that I don't condemn anyone, for the Bible condemns all of us as guilty, dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners.

Rest assured friend, though he is dead his message will endure, even today the glorious message of secularism is reshaping the face of Europe, making strong inroads into the United States, and will eventually overtake the inferior belief structures that came before throughout the entire civilized world. But all in good time.

You're exactly proving my point; The communists used to dream of taking the whole world, the jihadists, the atheists and gays would like to do the same. All of these crooks know nothing but to steal and destroy nature, human souls. I wouldn't be surprised if you threaten believers with "I will kill you, convert or die!" nonsense.

„He will be missed!“? This must be a joke. What do you miss him for? For his „intellect“ …. wooow, where did he get the intellect that told him to reject the Almighty God from? I am pretty sure he got it from Satan. So, why can someone be missed who rejected God, who blasphemed the Holy Spirit and who to the end tirelessly mocked the followers of Christ?

A couple of months ago I watched a stupid debate between him and the unholy-Spirited ex-Premier, Tony Blair. The whole debate was organized to lift up the spirit and ego of Mr. Hitchins. The guests in the room were purposely selected by the organizers to give rounds of applause to the rhetoric-obsessed Hitchins. And they all looked stupid and primitive, as they use the same old boring trick to mock beliefs and believers. Of course, at the end of the debate he was declared the winner – against religion, perhaps, against God.

I truly prefer a softly-spoken, stuttering nobody – like Moses – to the pseudo-wisemen á la Hicthins. This world doesn't need loud arrogant talkative individuals anymore. Who is louder than the rest at the moment? Atheists, Gays and Muslims. Frankly speaking, the world doesn't need them right now.

With his painful illness, mr. Hitchins had a better chance to know and learn God. He was given a chance to repent. But, he didn't. By refusing to do so he continued leading many astray. He was a public figure, and was supposed to repent publicly. Can you imagine how many lost souls could have been saved, if he had said before his death, “I am very sorry, I was wrong for denying God...”? No, he didn't repent, Hitler, Stalin, Mohammad never repented, his other hatemonger brothers and sisters in satan, like R. Dawkins and Madalyn Murray O'Hair continue their battle against the Christian God. King David calls them “fools”, and the scripture tells us these individuals land in hell. They will meet their master, satan, over there. The interesting thing is, it would be satan their master, who himself believes in the existence of God, that will be the first to great and accuse them why they didn't acknowledge Go while on Earth.

Please understand that I don't condemn anyone, for the Bible condemns all of us as guilty, dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners.

Rest assured friend, though he is dead his message will endure, even today the glorious message of secularism is reshaping the face of Europe, making strong inroads into the United States, and will eventually overtake the inferior belief structures that came before throughout the entire civilized world. But all in good time.

You're exactly proving my point; The communists used to dream of taking the whole world, the jihadists, the atheists and gays would like to do the same. All of these crooks know nothing but to steal and destroy nature, human souls. I wouldn't be surprised if you threaten believers with "I will kill you, convert or die!" nonsense.

I always enjoyed Christopher Hitchens, as wrong as he was. He had a great sense of humor and was one of the few public figures who actually formulated his own opinions rather than following the status quo of any particular movement. A darling of the political left for decades, he alienated his liberal comrades with his wholehearted support of the war in Iraq. He explained his support for George Bush's wars by assessing them as a battle between secularism and theocracy, and in my opinion his assessment was spot on.

Apparrently he maintained his atheistic convictions to his dying breath.

I believe I have asked God to show me where Hitchen is and I heard some cries... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! probably from hell. The tantrum can take 110 years at most for most people in our life with atheism, abortion, masturbation, smoking, fornication and such.

Its true Eastern orthodoxy has confession that can put people back on track. This needs to be used.

The Church merely resurrected the related ancient Greek and Roman institutions which they had previously destroyed and ultimately, I think it was the intellectual tradition of certain segments of Ancient Greek society, not Judaism, that helped give birth to the educational infrastructure that allowed our brightest people to be educated.

Keep romanticising the ancients, GiC.

The ever-lauded ancients were the ones who killed Socrates, as much as any mob of Copts killed Hypatia.

They were far from perfect, I don't know that we could even call them civilized, but they built the foundation of civilization and placed humanity on the path it enjoys today. A foundation that the Church tried very hard to tear down; so it's not surprising that some during the middle ages realized the folly of their age and decided to reestablish some of the ancient institutions that had been destroyed, either by the axes of barbarians or in the pursuit of piety.

Been reading too much 17th-19th century pesudohistory, my friend. Put down the Gibbon.

They are very quiet.Anyone can pray to be shown by God what one person state is in after life through prayer and anybody can ask God that this encounter to be with benefit for one or both people.Also we can ask God whatever we like like if muslim go to heaven or not, which religion is the best, to be forced to salvation and such.